AN expert witness testifying in the Anglo-Leasing case has told the trial court his findings were inconclusive.
He said if he had all the documents which EACC didn’t make available to him, he would have had a different opinion than the one he drew.
Prof Jason Campbell Sharman said he was not aware that the contract in question was among those exempted and single sourced by the government.
The witness said there was non disclosure that the company had had a history of 10 years trading relationship with the government.
“I depended on the auditor general’s report,” Prof Sharman explained.
He said he was completely ignorant of procurement procedures in Kenya but had been told that the process had been non competitive.
Prof Sharman said he was not shown documents attesting to the 10 years and may have drawn a different opinion.
“My opinion is(was) based on the Auditor Generals’ report,” the witness concurred.
SC Ahmednassir told the witness that information was denied from his reach to make him to be in a position to make an objective opinion.
The witness was categorical that the Auditor General’s report did not show that Sound Day was a trading partner with government since 1993 with a series of contracts.
Prof Sharma said he also based his findings on his expertise and a combination of documents.
He said he received a request to be involved in the Anglo leasing case through E-Mail and received a set of documents from EACC .
Prof Sharman said he did not interview the Auditor general after he received the report and before he gave his opinion which was largely dismissed in open court by the defence as generalised.
The witness said he was not a legal expert and lawyers attempted to draw more blood from his well layered shell…
He said he had volunteered his services without the otherwise (un)necessary procurement bottlenecks.
But the witness was taken to task o the alleged dates when he received, first informally, the formally, documentary evidence complied by EACC for prosecuting the case.
He said he formally signed the documentation on January 14 2016 but he first received them in November 2015 in the UK , “informarly.”
Prof Sharman confirmed that his conclusion was drawn from inadequate information.
He had concurred that the process awarding the contract was not competitive and that there was no due diligence but on the other hand confirmed he was not aware that such tenders that involved security were exempted by the minister and that the trading partner had belted a 10 year history of successful deliveries.
Such information, the witness said may have helped him have a different opinion against Soundday, a company he earlier blacklisted as a shell company.
“It was not specified that Sound Day was no- compliant,” the witness said.
He concurred that he drew his conclusions generally, and not specifically against Soundday.
SC Ahmednassir later pushed the witness to cite if in his final report he had cited any limitations he had observed. This was before he had shot at the witness and concluded that he was unaware of the provisions of registration of companies Act.
He accused the witness of making sweeping statements and not being forthright that his opinion had been informed, or rather , limited by the documents he received form EACC.
The witness said he was not shown a legal opinion from the then Attorney General Amos Wako, now Busia senator that had endorsed the contract.
“EACC was not fair to you…they should have made the documents available,” SC Ahmednassir said.
Hearing has been adjourned to May 6 2019.